Tag: defamation

  • Lee Hsien Loong – Suing My Siblings In Court Will Tarnish Family Name

    Lee Hsien Loong – Suing My Siblings In Court Will Tarnish Family Name

    Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Monday (Jul 3) explained why he chose to raise in Parliament a family dispute instead of suing his siblings in response to a public spat which started in mid-June.

    “Many people have asked me why I’m not taking legal action, to challenge the will, or sue for defamation, or take some other legal action to put a stop to this and clear my name,” said PM Lee. “I took advice and considered my options very carefully. I believe I have a strong case.

    “In normal circumstances, in fact, in any other imaginable circumstance but this, I would have sued immediately.”

    “Because the accusation of the abuse of power is a very grave one, however baseless it may be. And it is in fact an attack not just on me, but on the integrity of the whole Government.”

    “But suing my own brother and sister in court would further besmirch our parents’ names,” he explained. “At the end of the day, we are brother and sister, and we are all our parents’ children.”

    “It would also drag out the process for years, and cause more distraction and distress to Singaporeans. Therefore, fighting this out in court cannot be my preferred choice.”

    “Every family will understand that family disputes do happen, but they are not something to flaunt in public. That is why I have done my best to deal with this out of the public eye.”

    PM Lee said his purpose in keeping his submissions to the Ministerial Committee private was “not to pursue a fight with my siblings, but to assist the Committee in its work”.

    “Unfortunately, my siblings made public allegations against me. I then had no choice but to defend myself, and release the statements and facts about the matter.”

    “I stand by the statements I have published but I really don’t want to go further if I can help it.”

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

     

  • Postings By Han Hui Hui Shows That Roy Ngerng Wanted To Aggravate Libel (For Asylum)

    Postings By Han Hui Hui Shows That Roy Ngerng Wanted To Aggravate Libel (For Asylum)

    So the 3 day drama in the High Court ended today with Roy Ngerng doing what he does best, misleading and being insincere in offering his apology. Senior Counsel Davinder Singh underlined this, as this Channel News Asia report shows:

    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/roy-ngerng-has-not-been/1958428.html

    To quote SC Singh:

    “As you were incurring these expenses and filing fees, you were aware that if you continued to aggravate the injury, there was a risk that the damages could be increased,” the Drew & Napier lawyer said. “The sensible thing to do was to stop aggravating.”

    “He is continuing to attack the plaintiff (Mr Lee) for improper motives,” he told the court.

    Roy had no qualms in misleading the public to donate to his ‘legal fund, yet in the end he blew all of that, not only gallivanting around the world’ but even taking funds from foreign sources. Only to come to court to again say ‘he’s sorry and had no intent to defame.’ In the end what did that $110,000 from 1200 donors achieve when he discharged his latest lawyer, George Hwang last week and defended himself with Ms Han Hui Hui appointed as his ‘co-counsel?’ Under misleading remarks of fighting for people’s CPF return, he took $110,000 which could have helped many of those very CPF members with debts or in dire need of them. He could have settled the matter very early on by agreeing to the demands in the letter and apologising unreservedly. He would have walked away with a ‘moral victory,’ made the PM to look like a big bully and then continued to fight for the people without a need to waste $110,000. In doing so, he now has made crowd-funding for those who really need it more difficult. Take a look at his advice to Amos Yee, who also crowd-funded $20,000, which also wasn’t required as his lawyers were doing his case pro-bono.

    Senior Counsel Davinder methodically and systematically ripped Roy’s arguments to shreds proving time and again his deceit – saying 1 thing and doing another.

    Simply put, Roy has no qualms in blowing away money and teaching others likewise on how to obtain it with misleading remarks and not coming clean. Some people ask me why I continue to attack him and the rest of the Looney Fringe – well this is why – lying and being untruthful. Until then, I was a fellow supporter – I was encouraging him and Ms Han, thinking they were doing it for selfless reasons – fighting for a cause, being true activists. It all changed when I found the ulterior motives and I first raised the alarm in this blog post on him seeking asylum.

    Until today Han Hui Hui and Roy Ngerng are asking money from the public, if not from their personal pages then via their Empowering Singaporeans FB page. Both are working in tandem and in concert to deceive the public that they are ‘fighting for them,’ yet both have no qualms in going abroad and telling lies to their selected audiences. They want fame at all costs, yet do not work, do not go out to help the needy, rather chose to play ‘victim’ at every stage. Heaven forbid if they are elected – they’ll squander all the public funds they get their hands on and blame somebody else for it.

    I was a bit lazy then to upload the Facebook messages between me and Ms Han, but now that the case is over in court, let me share them. Since then I’ve been proven right each and every time, the words and actions by them have shown them to be what they truly are – opportunists with misguided notions of self importance. Note these are not words by a casual observer – it’s by Ms Han, Roy’s very own right hand ‘woman.’ Her actions are done with his blessings and in concert with him. And so here they are in sequence:

    1) Me chiding HHH for upping the ante with postings on her FB page.

    2) HHH claiming it was Roy who asked to up the ante.

    3) Buttressing the PM’s case of making the slander worse by aggravating it.

     

    4) She claims that this is what Roy, Leong and Ravi wants.

    5) At that point of time, I was under the impression that his lawyer M Ravi was behind this too. I later found out (and confirmed by SC Singh) that Ravi was in the dark about all of this.

     

     

    6) She  voluntarily mentions asylum the 1st time. I wasn’t taking it seriously then and made a joke about it.

     

    7) All this transpired before the Monday deadline, the earlier conversation took place on Saturday May 24th 2014. Thinking Roy was being badly advised, even by M Ravi, I volunteered to go meet him at Ravi’s office on Monday.

     

     

     

    8) Then on Monday May 26th, SC Davinder sent a fresh notice rejecting Roy’s supposed ‘apology’ after it was revealed he not only made a new video but disseminated it (and the blog post he was to take down) to lots of people at home and abroad (as stated in the CNA article above).  I was angry at those actions and told Ms Han off. She responded by stating again voluntarily – he was doing this for asylum.

    9) This time I took it more seriously and probed further and she explained:

    So there you have it – from the mouth of Roy’s best pal and confidant – his true intentions. Now before you say she’s making this up, do consider that at that point of time, we were friends – I genuinely believed that Roy and her were fighting for justice, they were passionate about the CPF issue, a bit misguided but their hearts were in the right place. Then this bombshell – all this was just a mere gimmick, telling the public and supporters 1 thing but doing another.

    Of course since then Ms Han has either blocked me or closed this account in the hope it won’t come to light. Furthermore it shows here as Facebook user – so was it really her or me making this up? Fortunately I did a screenshot of this conversation where her name is shown. Here’s 2 examples:

     

    Proof from Points 6 & 7 above that it was Ms Han Hui Hui and no one else who volunteered this information on the motives of Roy Ngerng to aggravate the libel.

    Conclusion. 

    So Roy can go and deny in court and especially to his foreign supporters that he is being bullied and tormented. He can lie to hard-core opposition supporters that he’s being up front and truthful, but he cannot run away from the fact that his very own ‘co-counsel’ and best friend ‘let the cat out of the bag,’ that all he did was with an ulterior motive. He never had the interests at the people at heart as he claims even suggesting that he writes nothing but the truth in his blog – The Heart Truths. Rather his actions and flip flopping show a different side. He tells a different thing to each of his preferred audiences and conveniently blocks or ignores hard questions about his motives and actions.

    In fact we needn’t go so far, at that point in time he had 1 of the best human rights lawyers around, M Ravi, to defend him. Why didn’t he just leave it to Ravi to handle Davinder Singh and the PM? Surely that’s the most logical thing to do when you face a letter of demand and potential lawsuit – leave it to your lawyers. Why do things without consulting him first? Why do things behind his back? Ravi would have complied with the terms laid out by Davinder and worded an apology to the PM’s liking and the matter would have been resolved there and then! He would walk away with a moral victory and could have continued to fight for the people he claims he wants to fight for. But that was never the case was it? No it was all about him and his self interests. It was to gain monies from unsuspecting followers. He’s no hero, he’s just a liar trying to trick unsuspecting people into believing he fights for them and wants to be rewarded with fame and money for his exploits, and possibly asylum. Of course he was too dumb to realise that no country would offer him asylum, so he tries to make himself the consummate victim, in the hope it’ll pay off eventually. And that’s why I termed him ‘The Looney Fringe.’ Anyway let me end with this warning I gave Ms Han then – again I was proven right.

    Source: http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg

  • Apology And Undertaking To PM Lee Hsien Loong

    Apology And Undertaking To PM Lee Hsien Loong

    I, Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, republish this apology on my blog, in recognition of having published Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s Demand Letter to me, on my blog, which included links to the Article on my blog, links to the Article on my Facebook page and on The Heart Truths’ Facebook page, and links to the other websites as stated in Paragraph 11 of the Demand Letter. I have since removed the above-mentioned portions from the article where the Demand Letter can be found and have republished this apology on my blog again. As I had explained in court, I did not realise that there were links inside the Demand Letter which would lead to the Article, and the related links and republication. (The Article was published online from 15 May 2014 to 21 May 2014. The Demand Letter was published from 19 May 2014 henceforth.) It was never my intention to defame the Singapore Prime Minister and I hope that by voluntarily republishing this apology on my blog, that I can show my sincerity to the Singapore Prime Minister. Thank you. 

    1.On or around 15 May 2014, I, Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, published on my blog (at http://thehearttruths.com/), an article entitled“Where your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial” (the “Article”). I also published links to the Article on my Facebook page (at https://www.facebook.com/sexiespider) and on The Heart Truths’ Facebook page (athttps://www.facebook.com/pages/I-want-the-government-and-people-to-work-together-for-Singapores-future/185331834935656).

    2.I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

    3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

    4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

    5.I have removed the Article and the links to the Article and undertake not to make any further allegations to the same or similar effect.

     

    Source: http://thehearttruths.com

  • Lee Hsien Loong: Roy Ngerng Not Remorseful

    Lee Hsien Loong: Roy Ngerng Not Remorseful

    The hearing on the assessment of damages that blogger Roy Ngerng has to pay to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong — after he was found guilty of defaming the Prime Minister — began today (July 1), in front of a packed courtroom with queues forming outside the courtroom hours before the session started.

    However, there were few fireworks during the six-hour hearing, with the judge repeatedly interjecting Mr Ngerng’s cross-examination of Mr Lee as a witness and bringing him back on track, despite giving the blogger — who was representing himself in court — more leeway in his questioning.

    On several occasions, Mr Ngerng tried to argue that his blog posts have no malicious intent, despite the fact that he was already found guilty of defamation. This prompted Mr Lee to remark that “we are not here to play games”, while his lawyer Davinder Singh objected to Ngerng’s comments and questions as being irrelevant.

    Both sides also crossed swords on whether there was malice in Mr Ngerng’s conduct, whether he was sincere in his apologies and whether his subsequent actions aggravated the injury to Mr Lee’s reputation.

    While Mr Ngerng started his cross-examination by apologising to Mr Lee at least three times, and pointing out that he had posted an apology on his blog for 405 days as of yesterday, his other actions suggested there was no remorse, Mr Lee pointed out. For instance, he posted a YouTube video repeating defamatory allegations against Mr Lee after he was served a letter of demand to remove the offending blog posting, and later set the access to the clip to private instead of removing it.

    That was not the end of it, added Mr Lee, who noted that Ngerng also went on to email the media on how to access offending posts on another website, among other things.

    “The issue is your motive and your purpose, having committed to take down the video, having committed not to repeat the libel, you have gone instead to make maximum effort to distribute as widely as you can to all editors in Singapore and overseas, and tell them where they can find it after you have taken it down,” said Mr Lee, who had offered not to claim aggravated damages if Ngerng removed the clip.

    Mr Ngerng argued that he meant no malice, adding that since Mr Lee had not met him before yesterday’s hearing, he had no basis to come to that conclusion. “If need be, you can put me on a lie detector and I can prove to you that there is no malice on my part,” he told Justice Lee Seiu Kin.

    He also questioned why Mr Lee had decided on suing instead of trying other means of recourse. To which, Mr Lee said he consulted his lawyers and saw the need to defend himself in this instance, after having observed Mr Ngerng’s blog for some time, which had previous postings on the Central Provident Fund (CPF) system.

    “You have been skirting closer and closer to defaming me for a long period, I have been watching this. I have not responded … eventually it was unambiguous (and) I decided that I have no choice but to act,” added Mr Lee.

    When Mr Ngerng sought to show that parts of his article contained factual statements, even pressing Mr Lee on issues pertaining to the workings of the CPF, Mr Singh objected, calling it a “thinly-disguised attempt to try to introduce issues not relevant to this hearing”.

    Both Mr Lee and his lawyer also pointed out that Mr Ngerng was straying into challenging the issue of defamation that had already been settled by the court. Mr Lee added: “We are not here to play games, the meaning of these offending words have already been settled … there is no point going through again other than to aggravate damages”.

    On Mr Ngerng’s question of why his initial offer of S$5,000 in damages was rejected even though it was an amount higher than his monthly salary then as a healthcare worker at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Mr Lee responded that it was “not a sincere offer” because Mr Ngerng had aggravated the matter through his conduct.

    “He was not serious or worried of how much he was earning … He wanted to make as big a dent in my reputation as he could,” added Mr Lee.

    The hearing continues tomorrow (July 2), with Mr Singh expected to cross-examine Mr Ngerng.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • High Court: No Queen’s Counsel For Roy Ngerng In Defamation Suit By Lee Hsien Loong

    High Court: No Queen’s Counsel For Roy Ngerng In Defamation Suit By Lee Hsien Loong

    The High Court today dismissed an application by blogger Roy Ngerng’s for a Queen’s Counsel (QC) to represent him in a hearing on damages he must pay for defaming Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

    High Court judge Steven Chong also ordered Ngerng to pay S$6,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements.

    Ngerng was found guilty of defaming PM Lee in a blog post he made last year that suggested PM Lee misappropriated pension funds in a similar way to how the City Harvest Church was accused of misusing church funds.

    The City Harvest Church is currently still before the courts with no verdict yet to be made.

    Ngerng’s lawyer George Hwang had filed the bid on 28 May, and had subsequently cited the precedence of the case as grounds for a QC.

    This is the first time a blogger is being sued by the Prime Minister in Singapore.

    However, Justice Chong said that “novelty is not to be confused with complexity”, as QCs can only be admitted to argue cases in the Singapore courts if they have special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case.

    He also said that while Ngerng’s choice of QC was well-respected in the field of defamation in the United Kingdom, the subject matter of this case is “local-centric”.

    Another factor for considering a QC was whether local senior counsel was available to take the case, and whether there is a need to engage the services of a foreign legal counsel.

    In response, Justice Chong called Ngerng’s attempts to seek members of the local bar who are not senior counsels to argue his case “disappointing”.

    “If Mr Ravi was suitable at the more complex stage, I fail to see why local non-senior counsels would not be suitable at this less complex stage,” Justice Chong was reported by media as saying.

    Human rights lawyer M Ravi had been representing Ngerng until his license to practice has been suspended on medical grounds. Ravi is currently seeking to have his license reinstated.

    Adapted from media reports.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com